Posted
by
Soulskill
on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:08AM
from the zerg-inc dept.

mrxak writes "It's official; Activision Blizzard's much-anticipated sequel to 12-year-old StarCraft is going to enter closed beta 'this month,' according to company President Mike Morhaime during an investor conference call. This comes in the wake of the SC2 beta forums showing up briefly on Battle.net. If you've got a Battle.net account, it's probably not too late to opt-in for upcoming Blizzard beta tests."

This is actually a good thing. Blizzard has the habit of not releasing unfinished games and even cancelling games if they start to look like they will be bad (SC:Ghost, WC:Adventures). I would much rather wait for a full and complete game without content cut out to meet a release date like EA-Bioware does (KOTOR2).

You know when this game comes out its going to be polished and will kick ass and kill several Koreans in teh process.

ghost wasn't going to be bad imhomy bet is they developed the game for the old xbox and when the next gen consoles were about to arrive they thought that SC:Ghost won't have much appeal given crappier gfx so they scrapped it.

At least I know every $200 netbook [liliputing.com] should be able to run to run Starcraft II since the game was developed 2005-2006. Seriously though, 12 years is too long, especially on a game that's this amazing.

Maybe they didn't want to risk potentially eating into WoW's market while it was growing at a fast pace, or perhaps they wanted to build in some of the tricks they learned with WoW into SCII - either way so long as we get a better game as a result I can live with a little wait.

This is Slashdot. We should be griping about the DRM, or the removal of LAN play which is obviously intended to keep us as indentured servants to the corporate behemoth, not talking about trivial things like when the game is going to be released.

This is Slashdot. We should be griping about the DRM, or the removal of LAN play which is obviously intended to keep us as indentured servants to the corporate behemoth, not talking about trivial things like when the game is going to be released.

You obviously didn't read the other Blizzard article. That's all you are about. Complaining about stuff. Slashdot is the Tea Party movement of the Internet. A bunch of old people complaining about how things used to be with complete disregard to reality.

Reality has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I know that Blizzard doesn't give a damn if me and a few "old people complaining" don't buy their product because they've got millions of young people out there conveniently pre-programmed to shell out their money for whatever they care to spew out, whether it tastes like ambrosia or crap.

I still play Starcraft in LAN mode 3 to 4 times a week with my wife and/or son. If SC2 just authorizes to battle.net then falls back to LAN play, I'm fine with that. If SC2 m

That's fine. But here is my point. You have no clue how it will be implemented. It may just require you to authenticate and then all traffic will be routed locally. My Internet is out maybe 1 or 2 times a year and usually is just a router restart. If this is a big deal, then you can't buy any multi-player game.

But instead of ANYONE here waiting to see how anything is done, they complain and already get their excuses in line to pirate the game.

No one here is talking about how it is cool you can just enter in a key to the new battle.net for your games and can download them - Mac or PC. No one is talking about how excited they are to finally get the next part of the story. You guys all are crying about LAN play and being online.

There has to be others out there that are just excited to play the game. I already know all your ideologies. It is hammered in almost every single post in every single article. You hate DRM. I got it. Don't buy any game because they will all have DRM. This is reality. All consoles are a form of DRM. This is a reality. These games will all sell despite your ideologies.

No one on here can just be excited for a game release? Nope, too much to ask. You all have the childish mentality that it is cool to bash everything.

Honestly, I don't care about your heart-breaking story of being unable to play with people you love. You know why? Because it is all made up. The game isn't out, you have no idea if what you are saying is true, but instead of just de-clenching you have already gone in to outrage mode.

I have been in this community for so many years. I loved Slashdot. But I think I have just outgrown it. You guys can't talk about an article. You can only karma whore by repeating the same ideology over and over again. I honestly challenge everyone here to just look at the comments modded up in every article. Pretty much every post modded up should be redundant. It has nothing to do with the article, and everything to do with "OMG DRM. OMG LAN. OMG BNETD." Yes, we all know all those things already. You will get modded up but you have contributed nothing.

And really, this isn't you...I am sure you are a nice person. I am just tired of the ideology, it doesn't have to be this way. Everything is spun Libertarian here and exaggerated so that it becomes worthless.

The frustrating thing is I know there are a lot of Slashdotters out there just like me. It is just we are the vocal minority. I feel like Slashdot has been stolen away by people who care more about shoving views down my throat than by technology.

My problem is with omnipresent DRM. I play Sins of a Solar Empire, and that's RTS DRM done right. I can't get updates without using Impulse (their decent-but-not-as-good-as-Steam app), but other than that, it doesn't phone home for single-player, or LAN play (which it has).

I praised Blizzard's new battle.net. It was very Steam-like to me (also DRM done right, IMO). LAN play may not be important to you. That's fine. But it's critical to me. You care more about the story. Great! Glad you like it. To me, i

I think you are missing the point of people voting with their wallets here.

I'm part of the aging gamers, I don't really play online anymore, I play LAN with my friends. So quite simply, if the game doesn't have LAN, it doesn't interest me much. LAN is not obsolete, just some game companies are replace it for a more controlled and income friendly methods.

Single player, eh, 10 hrs of play time isn't worth the time it takes to go to a store and shell out 60 bucks. I can wait till it reaches $35 for both it a

You are a moron. Try getting your news from more than one place. The Internet is socialism. So you may not want to post here. Public schools are socialism. Don't let your kids go to school there. Police and fireman...do you hate them? Socialist bastards all of them. Your points don't even make sense. What more wars are you talking about? We are ramping down in Iraq and trying to finish Afghanistan. Obama is trying to get health care through, but people that are stupid like you won't let everyone

Although I'm dreading the "simplification" of the economy, I'm much more looking forward to Supreme Commander 2. The AI might have sucked in the first one, but the strategic zoom and infinite queuing of tasks has added more to the genre IMO, than anything the original starcraft ever did. Not to mention the scope.

Still, as an RTS junkie, I'll be interested in seeing what the new Starcraft will offer. Hopefully they don't continue the unfortunate RTS trend of focusing more on offense, to the exclusive of defense and the intricacies of building up an economy.

Oh who am I kidding? I hope they both suck. I need them to suck. RTSes are as bad as any drug out there. Maybe worse. At least you can do other things while high on drugs. You can't do anything else while wasting your time on an RTS. Except perhaps, drugs....hmmm.

Hopefully they don't continue the unfortunate RTS trend of focusing more on offense, to the exclusive of defense and the intricacies of building up an economy.

My problem is that I enjoy base-building and defense too much. I lost many a Starcraft game because I never got around to attacking, and the game is designed so that no base is impenetrable. One of the things I love about Civilization IV is that peace and diplomacy is a perfectly viable and enjoyable strategy. It fits me like a glove.

Seriously, how long have they been hyping this game? Jesus christ jsut release it already. Only Blizzard could get away with this long of a ramp up period. THe game has been done for quite a while, the beta is just a PR joke. How do i know its done? BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN HOLDING TOURNAMENTS WITH IT.

I'm sure the game might be fun. But given that Blizzard has ripped out local LAN play (which is part of what made the original great), and made it into 3 $60 games instead of a single game with all 3 campaigns... fuck them. I am not a wallet, I am a customer. I used to be a Blizzard fan, and I may get this game eventually when it hits the bargain bins. PC games are losing ground to consoles because the fucking game manufacturers keep trying to turn the PC into a console.

*rolls eyes* Come on. You know what he meant. We obviously don't know the prices of next gen games. we both know, he is referring to the 360 and the PS3. There's no reason to be such a pedant all the time.

When Star Craft was first released Most people had dialup Internet. LAN Parties popularity wasn't as much about people getting together Although it was a big benefit, But to Play without massive Lag... Today with most people having high speed internet Lag isn't an issue. So you can still have you "Lan" Party but you will need to connect to the Internet and back out... Really no big deal with wireless. But for the most case the need for LAN parties isn't really that big anymore.

It's still annoying as hell that the original one let you use one copy to install multiples, and play with them all on a LAN. Now we've gotta all have our own copies. Add on top of that the "expansions" that will eventually be "required" if someone has all 3, EVERYONE has to have all 3, and you end up being nothing more than a wallet to Blizzard.

Add on top of that the "expansions" that will eventually be "required" if someone has all 3, EVERYONE has to have all 3, and you end up being nothing more than a wallet to Blizzard.

According to Blizzard; no. The first game will only contain one campaign, the human one I think, but will contain full multi-player, including all the units and races from the next two expansions. Thus, if you are only interested in multi-player you can completely ignore the two other campaigns.

According to Blizzard; no. The first game will only contain one campaign, the human one I think, but will contain full multi-player, including all the units and races from the next two expansions. Thus, if you are only interested in multi-player you can completely ignore the two other campaigns.

How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.

In other words you *will* need all three expansions for multiplayer matches. Of course they won't force it, but that would be exactly like playing wow at lvl 60 when everybody is lvl 80.

Aside from there being two expansions rather than just one (and a 12-year wait for the next title in the franchise), how is this different from the original SC?

StarCraft shipped with a fairly small set of maps, about 30 campaign missions, and full multiplayer. Brood War added new units, maps, and roughly 30 more campaign missions, and if you wanted to use the new units or new map tilesets you had to play with other people who had Brood War too. These days, nobody plays SC without Brood War, and while you ca

Even though we both can't predict the future I'm certain that *much* more players will buy all three games for multiplayer. It just doesn't make much sense to pigeonhole themselves into the first game only. How many people would buy only the first game or first and second or all three of them? I think the safest bet is that to play with much more gamers one would certainly buy all three games. My comparison generally still stands with WoW. Lvl 60, 70 and 80 characters don't meet much (if at all). They all p

When Star Craft was first released Most people had dialup Internet. LAN Parties popularity wasn't as much about people getting together Although it was a big benefit, But to Play without massive Lag... Today with most people having high speed internet Lag isn't an issue. So you can still have you "Lan" Party but you will need to connect to the Internet and back out... Really no big deal with wireless. But for the most case the need for LAN parties isn't really that big anymore.

(and blah blah IPv6 will solve this - not if the ISP only routes one or two IPs out of the/48 or whatver you get to you)

In areas with more than one ISP, IPv6 ISPs that route only a/128 will lose business to those that route a whole/48. Or are you claiming that an ISP will take the extra effort to segment its network such that it routes a/48 in areas with competition and a/128 in all other areas?

And LAN parties do still happen - people get together to play the Wii

Most of the time that's not a LAN party but single-screen multiplayer, the kind that's sorely lacking on PCs, even now that most HDTVs have a PC input.

When the first StarCraft was released, PC gamers used desktop PCs. Laptops are more common now than they were then, and web browsing over EDGE [wikipedia.org] can feel almost as slow as over dial-up. Besides, even for desktop PCs, high-speed cable and DSL coverage hasn't yet reached everywhere; the 0.25 Mbps DSL available where my mother lives is fairly slow.

Really no big deal with wireless.

Did you mean "wireless" as in 802.11-series WLAN with a cable or DSL uplink, or "wireless" as in EDGE, HSPA, or EVDO?

Yeah, but with LAN parties, you can use *ahem* "borrowed" copies of the game. Basically, there is a fairly vocal minority that wants to be able to play the game without actually paying for it (this of course does not include the people who gladly pay for it and still play via LAN, and I am certainly not saying that everyone that plays LAN pirates). Of course, I'm sure I'll still get modded down for saying that (even with the disclaimer), but whatever.

When Star Craft was first released Most people had dialup Internet. LAN Parties popularity wasn't as much about people getting together Although it was a big benefit, But to Play without massive Lag... Today with most people having high speed internet Lag isn't an issue. So you can still have you "Lan" Party but you will need to connect to the Internet and back out... Really no big deal with wireless. But for the most case the need for LAN parties isn't really that big anymore.

I bet you live in the US.

I'm Canadian. I can't remember the last time I got a server under 65ms ping. Most of the time I'm playing with friends on servers with 100-140ms ping, which are hosted in the US. Meanwhile my friends are enjoying 15-25ms ping.

It's a bigger issue in a FPS, but the point still stands. Not to mention all the times battle.net goes down. It's best to never make assumptions.

All that aside... a large percentage of your own country. (25%? I don't have specifics) is still on dialup, because

I had cable internet access back then: our town was one of the first 'test sites' for what is now the regional home provider giant.

I barely ever even played Starcraft except for at LAN parties. Why? Because it wasn't half as much fun. It was much more fun to sit next to friends, drink soda (and later, beer) and occasionally hit each other. Yelling at someone at "spit in the eye" range is also much more fun than doing it over Teamspeak or some such thing.

Okay, so by that logic, either it will be impossible for 2 or more people behind the same router to play multiplayer, or all of that traffic will have to go out the router, off to Blizzard, and then back into the router (meaning that there will definitely be other non-match-making servers at blizzard involved with multiplayer game action).

I don't play multi-player on battle.net, I play via LAN with my 9-year-old son inside the same house (and have been doing so for the last 3 years or so...since he was old

Okay, so by that logic, either it will be impossible for 2 or more people behind the same router to play multiplayer, or all of that traffic will have to go out the router, off to Blizzard, and then back into the router (meaning that there will definitely be other non-match-making servers at blizzard involved with multiplayer game action).

Skype can do this without any problems so I'm sure Blizzard can find a way to make it work. I am not sure how Skype does it but there are many ways to solve the problem.

1: Check to see if your public IP address is the same as the IP address of your opponent. If so, assume you are on the same network. Perform a broadcast on the subnet to find the private IP of your opponent.

2: Send your private IP address to the match-making server. Match-making server provides both the private and public IP addre

Okay, but if the idea is "no LAN play", then data won't stay local. It *will* go through a blizzard server. Combine Blizzard's public statement about lack of LAN play with technical requirements for avoiding it, and you're left with servers in the middle that are not match-making servers.

I'm not saying it's a difficult problem to solve (as long as you have an internet connection). I'm saying that both for multi-site and single-location multiplayer, there will need to be a non-local server involved during

The original Starcraft had roughly 30 missions. The three individual games are going to have 26-30 missions apiece. The multiplayer and other features (scenario editor) will be the same regardless of which of the games you purchase.

There's also no set price on the games. EB Games lists their estimated pre-order price for the first game at $49.99, but who's to say that the other games will be similarly priced? Blizzard has generally been very fair with their pricing I've found.

Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision, dies and goes to Hell. The devil greets him when he arrives and says "Bobby, out of all the people up there, you remind me most of myself, so I'm going to let you choose your punishment for your first thousand years."
The two start at a short hallway labelled "First Timers" and stop at the first door. Inside is an old man, screaming, having his skin peeled off in 1 inch strips. The devil explains "At the beginning of the day, his flesh is renewed. By nightfall, he is not

Bargain bins? For Blizzard games? Oh no-no-no-no-no, this does not happen.

Last year I wanted to pick up a copy of Warcraft III so I could play DotA with a friend of mine. The battle chest, mind you SEVEN YEARS after the game was initially released, was still $40. Amazon still lists it as $39.99 (-$5 discount).

By all reports the first campaign "Wings of Liberty" will have as much or more content than the original stand alone Starcraft. If they are providing 3 times the content I don't have any issues paying 3 times the cost.

PC games are losing ground to consoles because the fucking game manufacturers keep trying to turn the PC into a console.

Turning PCs into consoles? That won't happen easily in the RTS genre because the controls are so different.

But in other genres, let me know when multiplayer PC games designed for use with a single PC and HDTV become common, and I'll agree with you. But right now, they appear to be limited to Serious Sam, Left 4 Dead, and EA Sports.

I think the GP was talking about DRM/anti-pirating measures, not the user controls. Essentially they're trying to turn computer games into the black box that console games are.

Also the fact that they used to release add-ons and make it easier for people to write their own stuff, now they want to control and market all of that content so that they can keep charging you months after the initial game purchase - there used to be an excuse for this on the consoles (before hard drives, when additional content had to be packaged and took space on a shelf in a store, there's no excuse now).

Turning PCs into consoles? That won't happen easily in the RTS genre because the controls are so different.

That's what we used to say about FPS games, and now everybody is playing fps with a joystick. The Wii and DS already have a mouse, and for the next generation of consoles everyone else will have some kind of pointer too. Sucks, but it'll happen eventually.

Saying someone is acting like an emo doesn't mean I am labeling them. That would be saying "You are an emo".

The game + expansions won't cost that much. The person has no idea how much they will cost, but we know they won't be that much. So they are getting angry over something non-existent.

I honestly don't care about being taken seriously anymore on here. I know my view point isn't the same as the vocal majority and I will be modded down for that. I should be more respectful, but quite frankly, I h

No, I am using logic. Blizzard has never released games at that price and then released expansions at that price. The OP was stating it as if it was fact and then over-reacting to it. It would be considered a straw man if this were a debate.

You can call me whatever names you want. If you can't effectively counter the points I am making, then it is you who looks foolish.

I don't think you could *know* that the addon/expansions are going to be $60 each. However, you *CAN* extrapolate from other highly successful game franchises and what they've done with the DLC/Addons.

Take, for instance, Empire: Total War. It hasn't even been a year, and we've already seen 5 DLC's which add up to about $20, and they're releasing Napoleon: Total War which is set in approximately the same timeframe (18th to early 19th century Europe) for $40.

I don't understand your post. You go on giving excellent examples how no one charges $60 for expansions and then you complain about it. My point was the OP was flipping out about it costing $180 when there was nothing to justify that opinion. Your post further validates mine. Yet you seem to disagree with me.

I am currently playing Fallout 3. I am almost done with the main story and have yet to touch the DLC. I waited for the GOTY edition (what smart gamers do with their money). That game is worth $6

I imagine it would be difficult to make StarCraft 2 not be fun. And they certainly look to be putting in enough work that it has a reasonable chance of being more fun than the original. If for no other reason than including the (now obligatory) idle workers button:)

It wouldn't be too difficult to make StarCraft 2 not fun: just add digital restrictions management.

Require an Internet connection for single-player. This excludes players who game on a laptop with a laptop mouse and can't afford either A. 3.99 USD every time they want an hour of Wi-Fi or B. 1,439.76 USD plus tax for 24 months of mobile Internet access.

Require a broadband connection for multiplayer even when all players are on the same subnet. This excludes players who live outside major cities and have to use dial-up, satellite, 2G mobile, or low-end DSL, even if they share the connection so that all players can see Battle.net.

Require each player to buy a copy of the game. The first StarCraft had spawn installations, and a $50 game quickly becomes a $200 game when mom and dad have to buy a copy for each PC.

I agree that those things all suck, but:
1. I would be suprised if they don't cave in and allow offline single player eventually (its the MP they want to control, after all). This doesn't affect me personally, so doesn't make the game less fun for me.

2. If they end up allowing local LAN games to connect directly over the LAN after initial battlenet authentication, then this problem is mitigated substantially - a sub-par connection would suffice for this. If they don't, then that sucks, but this will rarely affect me personally, so doesn't make the game much less fun for me.

3. How many games these days (excluding indies) allow spawning? Also given that WC3 didn't, I suspect that anyone expecting SC2 to allow spawning was setting up unreasonable expectations. Also, Brood War didn't allow spawning, and I suspect almost no one plays starcraft without Brood War these days (or in the last several years), except perhaps ultra-casually.

Besides, no DRM will last forever with enough people with a vested interest in breaking it. There'll be a SC2 equivalent of hamachi SC1 before too long (complete with fake battlenet authentication server), in all probability.

If they end up allowing local LAN games to connect directly over the LAN after initial battlenet authentication, then this problem is mitigated substantially

I seem to remember the last Slashdot story about SC2 [slashdot.org] mentioning that the new game would allow dedicated servers, possibly even servers run by Blizzard. I tried to click through for details, but it appears the site is down at the moment. If play on a dedicated server is optional, or if the computer running Internet Connection Sharing is also running the dedicated server, then fine.

How many games these days (excluding indies) allow spawning?

There are two ways to have multiple players on one copy of the game: split-screen and spawning. Split-screen obviously doesn't ap

Also, Brood War didn't allow spawning, and I suspect almost no one plays starcraft without Brood War these days (or in the last several years), except perhaps ultra-casually.

Brood War also didn't use a CD-Key, so if you had the means to emulate the disc the expansion was playable on battle.net.

Of course now this is a complete non-issue because Blizzard now offers a complete Starcraft with BroodWar installer from battle.net "2.0" (is that what it is?) after the user attaches their Starcraft CD key to the ne

Brood War also didn't use a CD-Key, so if you had the means to emulate the disc the expansion was playable on battle.net.

But not at the same time as someone else using the same serial.

Of course now this is a complete non-issue because Blizzard now offers a complete Starcraft with BroodWar installer... So basically now an original Starcraft key is all that is required.

The whole point of spawn copies was that you could play on battle.net at the same time as the person whose game you had spawned. Of course, you could only play in games created by them, but going by tepples's example, a family could all play original starcraft against each other either online or offline using a single CD key. They cannot do the same (online) using brood war, as you can't spawn that, and nor does it look like they'll be able to d

WHile it's true that WC3 technically didin't have a spawn installation option, it really wasn't needed for local games. Even on the release version (years before the official No-CD patch), the game installed all its data files to the hard disk. The only time it checked for the CD was when you started the game, after which you could remove the CD and play all you wanted, even single-player. This emant that within one household, you only really needed on WC3 (and Frozen Throne) CD if you wanted to play on a L

I'll probably get modded down for writing this, but I'm more than certain that a short time after SC2 gets released there will be a pirated version that will circumvent all three of your points. When will companies learn that the only people affected by DRM are their paying customers and NOT those running pirated copies?

cracked single player will be available from day 1, or even earlier - nobody in his right mind would dispute that.

reportedly there will be an option to play single player without logging in, but your achievements and such worthless bullshit won't be saved (it's kept online). Installation process will require battle.net though, which is stupid beyond recognition. How hard is to scrap the offending code? 1hr of hacker's effort?

I played some at Blizzcon this year. It *feels* like a Starcraft game. Of course, I was only playing for about 20 minutes at a time, so the long-term balance wasn't necessarily easy to gauge. And 20 minutes isn't long enough to get all the way through the tech tree either....still, I'm convinced that the gameplay videos that have been released are relatively representative of the game itself. SC2 felt smooth. I'm still ticked off about the LAN stuff though. I work right next to a Blizzard office, and I've b

Maybe you would enjoy Torchlight? It's made by a bunch of former Blizzard folks, and is a very good Diablo clone. It doesn't have the same dark feel; it's slightly more cartoony, but still good. Definitely a good stop-gap until Diablo3.

This was truly a difficult decision for me: should I spend mod points to flag your post as a troll, which it clearly is, or should I allow the grammar nazi in me to tell you that the word you wanted was "ambivalence," not ambiguity?